Dataset Information

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Underutilization of effective screening is one driver of disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Consideration of patient preferences could help to improve screening rates in populations facing substantial barriers to preventive care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved patients in the United States. We searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) for articles published through February 2019 (Prospero ID: CRD42019125431). Among the 43 articles included, 23 reported screening modality preferences, 11 reported preferences related to provider demographics and attributes, six reported screening scheduling and results delivery preferences, and nine reported preferences related to health education and communication. This review demonstrates the wide variety of medically underserved patient preferences related to cervical cancer screening. It also draws attention to two key preference trends that emerged despite heterogeneity in study design, populations, and preference assessment. Consistent preferences for human papillomavirus self-testing over traditional Pap testing highlight a key potential mechanism for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake among medically underserved populations. In addition, preferences for gender- and language-concordant providers underscore the need for continued efforts toward expanding diversity among medical professionals.

SUBMITTER: Biddell CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7415615 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Biddell Caitlin B CB O'Leary Meghan C MC Wheeler Stephanie B SB Spees Lisa P LP

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20200526 8

Underutilization of effective screening is one driver of disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Consideration of patient preferences could help to improve screening rates in populations facing substantial barriers to preventive care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cervical cancer screening preferences among medically underserved patients in the United States. We searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO ...[more]

PMID: 32457182

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Project description:BackgroundSpecial events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.MethodsArticles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.ResultsOf the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50-1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.ConclusionsSpecial events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus affects almost 10% of U.S. adults, leading to human and financial burden. Underserved populations experience a higher risk of diabetes and related complications resulting from a combination of limited disposable income, inadequate diet, and lack of insurance coverage. Without the requisite resources, underserved populations lack the ability to access healthcare and afford prescription drugs to manage their condition. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings from cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in underserved populations.MethodsOriginal, English, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in U.S. underserved populations were obtained from 8 databases, and PRISMA 2009 reporting guidelines were followed. Evidence was categorized as strong or weak based on a combination of GRADE and American Diabetes Association guidelines. Internal validity was assessed by the Cochrane methodology. Studies were classified by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as very cost-effective (ICER≤US$25,000), cost-effective (US$25,000<ICER≤US$50,000), marginally cost-effective (US$50,000<ICER≤US$100,000) or cost-ineffective (ICER>US$100,000). Reporting and quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the CHEERS guidelines and Recommendations of Second Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, respectively.FindingsFourteen studies were included. All interventions were found to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. None of the studies reported all 24 points of the CHEERS guidelines. Given the considered cost categories vary significantly between studies, assessing cost-effectiveness across studies has many limitations. Program costs were consistently analyzed, and a third of the included studies (n = 5) only examined these costs, without considering other costs of diabetes care.InterpretationCost-effectiveness studies are not based on a standardized methodology and present incomplete or limited analyses. More accurate assessment of all direct and indirect costs could widen the gap between intervention and usual care. This demonstrates the urgent need for a more standardized and comprehensive cost-effectiveness framework for future studies.

Dataset Information

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Variation in Cervical Cancer Screening Preferences among Medically Underserved Individuals in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets